Hooper Nicholas, Johnson Tessa, Sachs Michael, Silverio Alexis, Zhu Lin, Bhimla Aisha, Teal Logan, Roth Stephanie, Lagrotte Caitlin, Stravrakis Joyce, Arcangelo Frank
Department of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine.
Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Public Health, Temple University.
Commonhealth (Phila). 2022 Jun;3(2):47-64. Epub 2022 Apr 15.
An estimated 3.8% of the global population experiences depression, according to the [2019] WHO report. Evidence supports the efficacy of exercise training (EX) for depression; however, its comparative efficacy to conventional, evidence-supported psychotherapies remains understudied. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of exercise training (EX), behavioral activation therapy (BA), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and non-directive supportive therapy (NDST).
Our search was performed in seven relevant databases (inception to March 10, 2020) and targeted randomized trials comparing psychological interventions head-to-head and/or to a treatment as usual (TAU) or waitlist (WL) control for the treatment of adults (18 years or older) with depression. Included trials assessed depression using a validated psychometric tool.
From 28,716 studies, 133 trials with 14,493 patients (mean age of 45.8 years; 71.9% female) were included. All treatment arms significantly outperformed TAU (standard mean difference [SMD] range, -0.49 to -0.95) and WL (SMD range, -0.80 to -1.26) controls. According to surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities, BA was mostly likely to have the highest efficacy (1.6), followed by CBT (1.9), EX (2.8), and NDST (3.8). Effect size estimates between BA and CBT (SMD = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.50 to 0.31]), BA and EX (-0.22, [-0.68 to 0.24]), and CBT and EX (-0.12, [-0.42 to 0.17]) were very small, suggesting comparable treatment effects of BA, CBT, and EX. With individual comparisons of EX, BA, and CBT to NDST, we found small to moderate effect sizes (0.09 to 0.46), suggesting EX, BA, and CBT may equally outperform NDST.
Findings provide preliminary yet cautionary support for the clinical use of exercise training for adult depression. High study heterogeneity and lack of sound investigations of exercise must be considered. Continued research is needed to position exercise training as an evidence-based therapy.
根据世界卫生组织2019年的报告,估计全球有3.8%的人口患有抑郁症。有证据支持运动训练(EX)对抑郁症的疗效;然而,其与传统的、有证据支持的心理治疗方法相比的疗效仍未得到充分研究。因此,我们进行了一项网状荟萃分析,以比较运动训练(EX)、行为激活疗法(BA)、认知行为疗法(CBT)和非指导性支持疗法(NDST)的疗效。
我们在七个相关数据库中进行了检索(从数据库建立至2020年3月10日),目标是针对比较心理干预措施直接对比和/或与常规治疗(TAU)或等待名单(WL)对照治疗成人(18岁及以上)抑郁症的随机试验。纳入的试验使用经过验证的心理测量工具评估抑郁症。
从28716项研究中,纳入了133项试验,共14493名患者(平均年龄45.8岁;71.9%为女性)。所有治疗组的疗效均显著优于TAU组(标准平均差[SMD]范围为-0.49至-0.95)和WL组(SMD范围为-0.80至-1.26)。根据累积排序曲线下面积(SUCRA)概率,BA最有可能具有最高疗效(1.6),其次是CBT(1.9)、EX(2.8)和NDST(3.8)。BA与CBT之间(SMD = -0.09,95%置信区间[-0.50至0.31])、BA与EX之间(-0.22,[-0.68至0.24])以及CBT与EX之间(-0.12,[-0.42至0.17])的效应量估计非常小,表明BA、CBT和EX的治疗效果相当。通过将EX、BA和CBT分别与NDST进行个体比较,我们发现效应量为小到中等(0.09至0.46),表明EX、BA和CBT可能同样优于NDST。
研究结果为运动训练用于成人抑郁症的临床应用提供了初步但需谨慎的支持。必须考虑到研究的高度异质性以及对运动缺乏充分的研究。需要持续进行研究,以使运动训练成为一种循证治疗方法。